(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.17 2016나8694

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.17 2016나8694

구상금

Text

1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall be within the scope of the property inherited from the net F.

Reasons

1. Determination on the legitimacy of a subsequent appeal

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made in the first instance court, which became impossible to serve as the Defendant’s domicile on the Defendant’s resident registration, and the Defendant was living in the former wife B and the Defendant’s resident registration address on the Defendant’s resident registration, and the Seoul Central District Court failed to serve as the Defendant’s resident registration address on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da157461, and submitted a written application for change of the place of service and a written response.

Therefore, since the defendant was aware of the pronouncement of the judgment of the first instance court through B, it cannot be deemed that the defendant failed to observe the period of appeal due to any cause not attributable to the defendant, the subsequent appeal of this case is unlawful.

B. Determination 1) If a copy, original copy, etc. of a complaint were served by service by public notice, barring any special circumstance, the defendant shall be deemed to have been unaware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant shall be deemed to have been unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and thus, the defendant may file an appeal for subsequent completion within two weeks from the date such cause ceases to exist. The term “the date on which the cause ceases to exist” refers to the time when the parties or legal representatives are not simply aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, but the time when the parties or legal representatives become aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice. In ordinary cases, barring any special circumstance, it shall be deemed that the parties or legal representatives become aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the parties or legal representatives inspected the records of the case or received new authentic copy of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8005, Feb. 24). 24, 2006>

참조판례

-대법원 2006. 2. 24. 선고 2004다8005 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.01 2014나33085

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.06 2017나61227

-대구지방법원 2020.04.08 2019나312133

-인천지방법원 2017.04.27 2016나64169

-전주지방법원 2016.09.28 2014나12518